Surendra Jaiswal v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence, the writ petition is disposed off with
Provisions considered
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 5
Judgment
1 - Surendra Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 63 Years R/o Old High Court Road, Opposite State Bank Of India, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director Panchayat, Panchayat Secretariat, Sector-19, North Block, Vikas Bhavan, Ground Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Additional Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Badri Prasad Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal Aged 2 About 61 Years R/o Old High Court Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - Shailendra Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal R/o Old High Court Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 8 - Joint Director Town And Country Planning, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri V.R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate along with Shri Atul Kumar Kesharwani and Shri Amritansh Shukla, Advocates. For Respondent No. 1 : Shri R.K. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General. to 5 & 8/State Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board
16.01.2025
By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has failed to explain the delay in preferring the appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred the appeal under Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules 1995, before the Secretary (respondent No.1) questioning the order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner Bilaspur Division/respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal has been filed before the Secretary State under the Rules 1995 along with an application for 3 condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Explanation was made before the Secretary that immediately after the petitioner came to know about the order dated 30.03.2013, when an FIR bearing no. 0717 dated 04.10.2023 lodged against the petitioner under Section 292(C) of Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 in Police Station Sirgitti Bilaspur and after knowing about the order he preferred the appeal along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department Chhattisgarh. However the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected and the appeal has been dismissed without considering the explanation raised by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State submits that the application under Section 5 is without any proper explanation and the respondent Secretary has rightly rejected the application as the petitioner failed to explain the delay of 10 years in filing the appeal.
Operative part
I have heard both the counsels for the parties and perused the order dated 15.10.2024 by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by the Secretary stating that the explanation of delay in filing the appeal for a period of ten years has not been explained properly though the appeal provision prescribed that the appeal should be filed within a period of 30 days. It appears from the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner that the petitioner has not explained the delay in detail in his application, the petitioner has to explain each and every date of delay in filing the appeal, as the same has been filed at a belated 4 stage i.e. after ten years. Hence, the writ petition is disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to explain the delay in filing the appeal by filing a fresh application under Section 5 along with the appeal filed earlier and the Secretary shall consider the same by providing opportunity to all the parties including all the respondents therein and pass a detailed order by considering the application and explanation within a period of 50 days from today. The appeal filed by the petitioner is remitted back to the Secretary.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petition is disposed off with
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.